this post was submitted on 15 Dec 2021
18 points (95.0% liked)
Lisp Community
810 readers
13 users here now
A community for the Lisp family of programming languages.
Lisp (historically LISP) is a family of programming languages with a long history and a distinctive, fully parenthesized prefix notation. Originally specified in 1958, Lisp is the second-oldest high-level programming language. Only Fortran is older, by one year.
Related communities
- Clojure (lemmy.ml)
- Clojure (programming.dev)
- Lisp (programming.dev)
- Scheme (lemmy.ml)
- Scheme (programming.dev)
- Guix (lemmy.ml)
- Guix (infosec.pub)
- Emacs (lemmy.ml)
Language references
- Common Lisp
- Scheme
- Racket
- Clojure
Tools
- IDEs for CL
- Quicklisp (CL Library manager), Qlot (project-local library manager)
- ocicl (new library manager)
- Roswell (CL Environment Setup Utility)
Tutorials/FAQS
- lisp-lang.org
- The Common Lisp Cookbook
- Style Guide Norvig/Pitman
- Nikodemus' CL FAQ
- Google CL Style Guide (2014)
- A Road to Common Lisp (2018) (noob guide)
- Udemy Common Lisp course (videos, commercial)
- State of the CL Ecosystem 2022 · 2020 · 2015
- Where to get help with Common Lisp
Useful Lisp resources
- Common-Lisp.net
- Awesome CL (CL libraries)
- Planet Lisp
- Planet Scheme
- comp.lang.lisp
- CL Professionals Mailing List
- Lisp companies
- Wikipedia CL
- Stackoverflow Lisp questions, CL, Scheme
- Code Review (Lisp, CL, Scheme)
- Rosetta Code, CL
- Mailing Lists, more
- ANSI Clarifications and Errata
Search
Videos
Common Lisp
Clojure
Racket
Scheme
- MIT's SICP lectures
Books
- Free, Complete, On-line, Authorized
- Common Lisp: A Gentle Introduction to Symbolic Computation (Touretzky, 1990)
- Common Lisp: An Interactive Approach (Shapiro, 1992)
- The Common Lisp Cookbook / Original 2007
- Common Lisp The Language, 2nd Edition [Pre ANSI] (Steele, 1990)
- How to Design Programs (Felleisen, Findler, Flatt, Krishnamurthi)
- Lisp Outside the Box (unfinished, Levine, 2011)
- On Lisp (Graham, 1993)
- Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming (Norving, 1992)
- Practical Common Lisp (Seibel, 2005)
- Programming Languages: Application and Interpretation (Scheme) (Shriram Krishnamurthi, 2007-2020)
- The Scheme Programming Language (Scheme) (R. Kent Dybvig, 2009)
- Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs, HTML5/EPUB3 (Scheme) (Abelson/Sussman, 1996)
- Other Books
- ANSI Common Lisp (Graham, 1995)
- Common Lisp Recipes (Weitz, 2016)
- Land of Lisp (Barski, 2010)
- Let over Lambda (Hoyte, 2008)
- Lisp, 3rd Edition (Winston/Horn, 1989)
- Object-Oriented Programming in Common Lisp: A Programmer's Guide to CLOS (Keene, 1989)
- The Art of the Metaobject Protocol (Kiczales/des Rivières/Bobrow, 1991)
Food for thought
- An Intuition for Lisp Syntax
- Lambda the Ultimate
- Erik Naggum comp.lang.lisp archive
- Pascal Costanza's Highly Opinionated Guide to Lisp
Implementations
- CL Open Source
- CL Commercial
- Allegro CL
- LispWorks multiplatform, iOS and Android
- CL Developmental
- CL Historical
- mocl for OSX, iOS and Android
- Open Genera
- Scieneer CL
- CLiCC (CL→C)
- Corman Lisp (MS-Windows)
- Eclipse Common Lisp
- MKCL (fork of ECL)
- ThinLisp (CL→C)
- WCL (embeddable)
- Scheme TODO
Events
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Does that mean they considered Lisp to be low level?
I started writing a reply to you and realized you bring up a good point which I can't really answer.
I am pretty sure Sussman maintains that Scheme (and Lisp) are "high level" languages, but it is a somewhat pure implementation of Lambda calculus with a few practical features added into it. And to me, understanding lambda calculus is kind of a bare minimum for understanding the fundamental mathematical theory of computing. So putting it that way, getting rid of Scheme from the computer science curriculum seems to me kind of like getting rid of integral calculus from the engineering curriculum.
Maybe to give Sussman and the MIT staff the benefit of the doubt here, it doesn't make sense for people going into AI to learn about lambda calculus when statistics is far more important for that field. Maybe they should separate AI and computer science entirely and go back to teaching computer science people about computer science, and teach AI people about statistics? Maybe AI should be considered a field of statistics and not computer science?